I spoke to my RD yesterday and brought this up. She is sure it will be a topic of discussion and she also did not hear anything about it in advance - in fact, she thought it was EF not DF doing it.
Well I donât understand why they are constantly hammering at the average rider to try and meet their international force goals. This is STILL an enormous country with small pockets of elite dressage activity and vast, vast areas where there is limited or no access to trainers, shows, clinics, school horses, etc. It is also a country where recession is the new norm and many people struggle to keep one horse and cannot take from their family to purchase a six figure horse. My suggestion would be that, instead of raising qualifying standards above what is considered âsatisfactoryâ (which still is a laudable goal for the underserved areas), why not create a new division to prepare riders to move into elite competition. IOW, instead of dragging everyone along with you, why not have certain competitions that have qualifying divisions (JR/YR, YH, DH, etc.) have a National level class for each division which is the highest test of the level and requires more than one judge, which the idea that these classes are pre-CDI, non-championship classes or maybe are some equivalent of a low level CDI (is there a * CDI?). Why not expand, instead of contract? In fact, you can even have your pre-CDI division be a requirement for participation in National championships (since most smurfs canât afford to go anyway).
3 Likes
It might be interesting to ask about USDF membership trendsâŠboth overall numbers and trends by regions.
If the USDF is a member supported organizationâŠthen the corollary is to ask what does the organization do to support its members?
And how does this rule change benefit the members?
2 Likes
Anyone hear any feedback from their Region or GMO leaders?
Region 5 has made a comment that the new rule was proposed earlier and that people had an opportunity already to comment on it. I personally didnât see it, but that doesnât mean it didnât happen somewhere at some time, some how. I still donât understand the need to rush it through, or the need for it at all. I think perhaps this is going to be the party line though.
Also, from the viewpoint of those of us who DO show up. We are going a volunteers - usually traveling on our own time and our onw dime because we WANT to be involved. And USDF has made this process ostensibly in order to involve the PMâs and GMO members. Then they go and completely circumvent it and sneak through the very rules that affect MOST of us. What is the point of having convention, and representative government, and open forums at convention if they are not going to use them?
2 Likes
There is little point then. When rules are changed using âextraordinaryâ circumstances as a justification, it makes the convention look like itâs just for show, not for actually listening to people and solving problems.
3 Likes
Can you ask for clarification on where the rule change was noted earlier?
In other words, ask them for proof of this statement.
It would be worth asking why the extraordinary rule change was needed for something with âPotential Impact: Noneâ
9 Likes
I sent email to Hannah Niebielski (hniebielski@usef.org - Rules Staff Member) asking who initiated the Extraordinary Rule Change for DR 129.9, asking to understand how this rule change met the criteria of GR-152.
Have not heard any reply.
Here are the contacts for Dressage in USEF if anyone wants to see if they have better luck.
https://www.usef.org/compete/disciplines/dressage
2 Likes
The only other extraordinary rule changes I found on the main rule change listing were for measurement requirements for driving ponies and a safety issue in ridden Hackney classes. And reading GR152 that pluvinel referenced I do not see how raising the qualifying score to a 63 has anything to do with the reasons listed in GR152. I would have been more ok with the change was in line with regional qualifying by level (therefore the required minimum tapers down as difficulty of level goes up) that a broad âmake it a 63â
I know I probably showed my last freestyle last weekend unless my horse and I go backwards. I love him dearly but a 63 at grand prix (we are working on I-2 now) is a very big stretch for his little OTTB legs. Even a mistake free test barely gets him a 60 because he just doesnât have the fancy factor.
Becky
4 Likes
Nov. 29 is just around the corner, so I thought I would bump this thread to see if anyone has any further insights prior to USDF Convention.
They posted on Facebook, the number of riders effected by this.
1 Like
Thank you. I find their analysis flawed and their statement that 60 is no longer proficient (or satisfactory) to be a telling state of the cluster that dressage is creating for itself! And they basically stated that their intent by this rule change is to exclude!
6 Likes
Per the document posted above, the topic will be discussed several times during the USDF Convention.
The question to ask at the convention is why did TPTB use the Extraordinary Rule Change process that does not have a public comment period and thus excludes the membership from providing feedback.
I have asked the USEF, my USDF Regional Director and a Region PM memberâŠno one has answers.
This topic will be included on the agenda for discussion at the USEF/USDF Open Forum that will be held during the AdequanÂź/USDF Annual Convention. This meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 29, at 12:15 p.m. Questions can be addressed during the Judges, L Program, and Freestyle Open Forum, also scheduled for Thursday.
The question isnât to justify raising the scoreâŠthere are other questionsâŠ
- The question is about [U][I][B]HOW[/B][/I][/U] the USDF did the rule change.
- Why would the USDF introduce a rule change using a process that bypasses USDF member input?
- How does this benefit the USDF membership which is made up predominantly by AA's?
4 Likes
I find their choice of statistics curious. It looks like they took everyone that rode a (certain) level freestyle and then correlated their qualifying scores for that level. What they are missing is members who have âqualifiedâ with a 60% for a yet unridden freestyle and will now be ineligible. But I guess they are okay with that.
I suppose I should be happy that my goal is no longer my 3rd Level freestyle for next year to complete my Bronze Freestyle bar as I wouldnât be able to anyway⊠Iâll be messing around Training level and learning the show game with my young horse.
6 Likes
From the USDF link posted above, I found this statement interestingâŠ
https://www.usdf.org/docs/announcemeâŠB0dbOBg-0dMQn4 [INDENT]Over the past few years, the USDF Freestyle and Judges Committees have been discussing the quality of freestyles and the technical proficiency that seemed to be missing in some freestyles. This has also been discussed at the annual convention for the past couple of years. In the spring of 2018, the USDF Freestyle Committee, with the support of the USDF Judges Committee, put forth a proposal to the USDF Executive Board to increase the prerequisite score to 63%. This was approved by the USDF Executive Board and was then forwarded on to the USEF Dressage Sport Committee as a proposed rule change. In the proposal that was reviewed by the USDF Executive Board, the committee indicated "the prerequisite score is meant to show proficiency at the declared level. The committee members agreed that the 60% prerequisite score no longer shows proficiency at the declared level and a prerequisite score of 63% would raise the overall quality of freestyle tests throughout the country." It should also be noted that in 2005, a prerequisite score of 58% at the highest test of the level was added and in 2009 that score was increased to 60%.[/INDENT]
The second statement is interesting in that for the last 13 years the USDF has been increasing the qualifying score from 58% to now 63%.
One could ask how that has been working out. Will we see 70% as the qualifying score in the future?
If 60% no longer âshows proficiency at the declared levelâ then whose fault is it?
If the judges are awarding high scores it is a failure of the judging system. Judges are not awarding sufficiently low scores to measure these poor rides they are referencing as the basis for the rule changeâŠtalk about grade inflation!
The first statement clarifies that it was Freestyle Committee and the judges who instigated this rule change. Here is the lis of the USDF Freestyle committee
Position Region Name
Chair 5 Janet L. Hannon
Liaison 2 Sharon A Vander Ziel
Member 1 Jeanne McDonald
Member 1 Anne Snipes Moss
Member 3 Natalie P. Lamping
Member 3 Terry Ciotti Gallo
Member 6 Kari J McClain
Member 6 Joan K Darnell
Member 7 Anne B Howard
Member 8 Sarah Geikie
Member 8 Ann L Guptill
Member 8 Debra J Reinhardt
2 Likes
I find this just indicative of the direction USDF is moving - and my GMO seems to be headed the same direction. Less and less support for the grass roots, the base of membership. They seem to have forgotten that MOST members are regular riders (AA or small time Pro) on inexpensive horses, that lack the time and money for fancy horses and full training or training with a top trainer.
Their analysis shows that 9% of the riders will be âdisplacedâ - apparently that is such a small number that they donât matter? So, if USDF saw their revenue drop 9%, which that also be such a small number that it is not relevant? If we dropped the judgeâs daily rate by 9%, would that be OK? If we dropped USDF employee salaries by 9%, would that be OK? I ask these questions to illustrate that 9% is a significant number!
If you are one of those 9% that must go back and try to qualify - after youâve already done so following the rules that were in place, then that can be a real hardship. And if youâve already invested time and money into creating a freestyle - and now you have to give it up? Is that even vaguely fair? What about if you were qualified under the old rule, and spent all year designing your freestyle to show in the Spring, and now you find out youâve wasted all that time?
And here is reality on how judging works - quality of gaits first and foremost, THEN technical proficiency. So if my pony is a 6 mover, not big, not scopey, correct by unimpressive - and I ride a VERY correct shoulder in, I get a 6.5 - I get a half bonus point for the correctness, but I am pretty limited by âquality of the gaitsâ (as it states in that moveâs directives). Now, if Iâm on a fancy 8 mover - I start with an 8, and even if the quality of the shoulder in is not-so-great, the angle varies, I lose the bend, Iâm still going to get a 6.5 because I started with an 8 mover. So what this does is essentially requires MUCH better riding from those who donât have the fancy horses. This rule change doesnât address technical proficiency, it just excludes those who canât buy the fancy.
And - letâs face it, 63% is easy enough at Training, First, even 2nd level. But once you get into 3rd, 4th, FEI - if you donât have the big moving horse, those 63% scores get much harder.
I donât have an actual dog in this fight - I havenât done a freestyle for years. But it really bothers me because I see this as the overall direction the dressage groups are headed - if you donât have money, we still want your membership, we still want you to volunteer and support our programs, but we really donât want to see you ride your crappy cheap horse.
21 Likes
@MysticOakRanch very well written. Your point that fancy movement can make up for serious training/riding flaws, is something I am currently struggling with, with dressage in general.
2 Likes
@MysticOakRanch I agree with you. I might have even supported a score increase to 63% for training and first level only if this hadnât been done as an extraordinary rule change. Or even making freestyles qualifying scores the same as regionals qualifying scores for amateurs, 63 at training, 62 at first, 61 at second, and 60 from there on.
There is obviously a fundamental disagreement between those of us that think you should show a freestyle if you want to because its fun, and USDF who thinks itâs a reward for those who have demonstrated mastery of the level.
I wonder how many less people will qualify for Regionals in freestyles with the qualifying score now moved up from 63% in 2018 to 65% for 2019?
4 Likes
